quorum call: a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. nelson: mr. president, i ask consent that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. nelson: mr. president, i ask consent to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. nelson: mr. president, you heard a lot of talk about with the trouble in the middle east. people are saying that oil prices are going up, and,

therefore, the pain at the gas pump is being felt because there is this shakiness on the oil markets. now you hear the commentary, we ought to be solving this problem by drilling more in the u.s. and, of course, in essence what people are talking about is they want to drill more in the gulf of mexico. of course there's plenty of opportunity to drill in the gulf of mexico. there are 30 million acres that are already under lease that have not been drilled. there are 7 million acres that are being drilled under lease. but there's an additional 30 million acres in the gulf of mexico under lease. and so there's plenty of opportunity. so there's a lot more opportunity for domestic

drilling. but what i want to talk about today is it's this simplified message that if we just drill more domestically -- which we clearly have the capacity to -- that that's going to solve the problem. and that's not the problem, and that's not the reason for why the gas prices are going up like they are. now, i'll grant you that whenever there is an oil-producing region of the world where there is a disruption, then that does have some effect on the price of oil. but what we have seen is an

extraordinary spike in just the last couple of months in the price of oil. and i want to try to point out to the senate why this senator thinks, and a number of my colleagues join me, why that spike in gas prices is going up. there is further evidence that our energy markets are no longer governed just by the economic dictums of supply and demand when it comes to oil prices. and that's what i want to talk about. now, it's simply this: the speculators are back. we saw the speculators in oil futures contracts. we saw their handiwork two years ago when the price of oil hit an

all-time high of $147 a barrel. and this taoeuplt speculators -- and this time the speculators are seizing on the turmoil in the middle east and north africa to use that as an excuse to drive this price of oil sky-high. and yet, recent upheavals abroad have had little, if any, effect on the actual supply of oil. again, coming back to the economic theories of supply and demand. libya, for example, controls only 2% of the world's oil supply. well, mr. president, there's a key piece of evidence that points the finger at these condo flippers of the commodities market. data from the commodities future

trading commission, the cftc, revealed since january when the protests began in egypt, speculators increased their betting on future oil price increases by more than 38%. and meanwhile, legitimate hedgers for oil futures contracts -- legitimate hedgers like airlines and shipping companies and oil companies -- have actually reduced their holdings in oil futures contracts. now, for example, all you need to do is to see what's happening as represented on this chart. you see closely how the rise in oil prices, the red line, tracks

the increase in speculative activity, the white line. a procession in a futures contract means you're betting the price of oil will go up. therefore, you buy a contract to buy oil at a determined amount in the future. that's what this chart is about. so if you go over here, on january 25 of this year, the day that the protests began in egypt, the speculative money was on long-held positions in just over 217,000 west texas intermediate crude oil futures contracts. west texas intermediate crude is

the standard by which they judge. and when the protests began in egypt, they were down at 217,000 futures contracts. well, that's the equivalent of about 217 million barrels of oil. on march 8, the last day for which we have the data, these same speculators held the equivalent of more than 301 million barrels of crude, which was an increase of 38%. from 217 to 301. now, look how closely the price of oil tracks these swings. this is the speculative buying

or betting in futures contracts. the white line. look how closely the price of oil follows. the red line. during the same period, from january 25 to march 8, the price of oil climbed from $85 a barrel all the way up to $105 a barrel. that's an increase of nearly 24%. and guess who the loser is in this game of profit gouging? it's the american consumer. higher gasoline prices mean less money for anything that the american consumer has to buy. and at the end of the day guess who else is the big loser?

it's the american economy. and so these speculative bubbles in oil prices are becoming more and more common. we saw it in the summer of 2008, when oil spiked up to an unbelievable $147 per barrel only to plummet almost 80% in just a few months later. now you can't say that going from $147 a barrel all of a sudden down to $30 back in 2008 had anything to do with the supply and demand. there had to be another influencing factor. well, because of this, last year when we passed the dodd-frank wall street reform and consumer

protection act congress empowered the commodities future trading commission to rein in to keep the commodities from flying off the rails like it is in the last two months. yet, the commission, the cftc, has yet to finalize new rules to govern the speculative position limits. and meantime, what happened is speculators continue to buy $100 worth of oil futures with just $6 down. 6% down to buy oil contracts for futures. and i believe that the law that we passed last year has given the cftc an extremely effective tool at its disposal that it could use to discourage

excessive energy speculation and bring down gas prices that our american consumers are now finding that are hurting their pocketbooks so much. and that authority is the authority to impose higher margin requirements on oil futures contracts. so instead of $6, they could require that there be more than 6% that they would have to pay down on buying a future oil contract. now in the current system, some ordinary investors have to put down as much as 50% in order to buy things, while financial speculators have to post only 6% to buy a future contract. that doesn't seem to me to be fair and is leading to this kind

of system of which there is now pain at the pump. well, these kind of margin requirements are not set by federal regulators but rather by the exchanges themselves. and for the same reason that we don't let pharmaceutical companies approve of their own drugs, we shouldn't let futures exchanges set regulate by setting their own margin requirements. fortunately, in a section of the dodd-frank bill, section 736, congress removed the broad statutory restriction that prohibited the cftc from setting those margin requirements. and that section authorizes the cftc to call for higher margin requirements in order to protect thing financial integrity.

so this kind of thing doesn't happen. so, mr. president, i'm calling on the cftc now to exercise the authority that the congress signed into law by the president gave them last july. i'm asking them to get going on this. there is a letter that has been circulated here among the senators encouraging the cftc to use the commission's power to increase margin requirements on these oil speculators. i want to urge my colleagues who are listening to join in this letter as it is circulated among your offices. and under the dodd-frank act, these new margin requirements would take effect as soon as july. but the cftc must begin the

rulemaking process now, because if we don't and you get into the summer driving season, you know what's going to happen here. and this is march. it's just going to keep going up and up. now i want to be clear, where those who have a legitimate reason like airlines, like shipping companies, like oil companies, to buy future contracts, that margin level would not apply to them. it would only apply to the speculators, imposing a higher margin on speculators it's consistent with exchanges practices. for example, the new york mercantile exchange, it's the major trading platform on oil futures. it imposes different margin rates on speculators as compared

to bona fide hedgers. so, mr. president, anybody that's been at the gas pump recently knows that this is a real issue, and they're asking us to do something about it. and then we hear in return, it's supply and demand. i'm trying to prick that balloon and bust that bubble. congress and administration need to be out front doing everything that we can to ensure that the price of oil reflects the real supply and demand, not the irrational speculative fervor. and with the right policies we can diskiewrng the damage that -- discourage the damage that excessive speculation is doing. i'm going to ask two things of my colleagues. i'm going to ask that you take a look at this a letter that's

being circulated that's going to the chairman of the cftc, commissioner gensler, and don't fall for the notion that just more drilling is going to put an end to the spiral. i'm all for the drilling and all of these acres out there that are already leased. i'm all for it if it's done safely. but guess what we're hearing, we're starting to hear, drill baby, drill. but, you know, facts are stubborn things, mr. president. even if there was expanded drilling in the u.s., it's not going to affect the price of gas in the short term or even over the next half a dozen years. and that's largely because the u.s. holds two to -- 2% to 3% of the world's supply, which is not enough to affect prices

globally. further, the truth is, that the oil and gas companies have this 30 million acres that's leased, but not drilled, offshore and another 30 million acres onshore and they're not even drilling yet. and so simply put, the attempts to link the recent increases in the price of oil to the need to increase drilling is just off the mark. frankly, you know, we haven't changed the way that we do business with oil companies. unfortunately, it's been just a little less than a year since the deepwater horizon oil rig exploded and we know what damage that did to the fishery, the

tourism, the economy of the entire gulf region. a lot of oil is still there and american citizens continue to fight to get their lost claims paid. we're not going to know for years to come what the long-term impacts are going to be, but, certainly, the economic damage is rising and rising. and even worse, if another spill happened today, the responsible party would still have only a liability cap of $75 million. so we've got to address that. but in the mean time, we've got to confront this. and we've got to confront the high gas prices. and i think we need a multipronged approach, and that includes getting the cftc to do their job. mr. president, i yield the floor.

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: mr. president, and my colleagues, i rise to speak about the judicial nominee that we're going to be voting on. today we will confirm yet another president obama's judicial nominees. after today's vote, we will have confirmed five judicial nominees in just the last five legislative days. so we're moving very swiftly in committee and on the senate floor. notwithstanding our quick pace, we hear from some that we're not moving fast enough. as i have said before, our side will continue to work in a cooperative way and a good-faith way to process the presiden nom. we will not replace quantity above quality. these lifetime appointments are

too important to the federal judiciary and to the american people to simply rubber stamp them. today we will vote on judge james boasberg to sit on the u.s. district court of the d.c. district. judge boasberg is not the first individual nominated to fill this vacancy. this seat became vacant in may 2008 when judge thomas f.hogan took senior status. president bush nominated jeffrey adam rosen. he was unanimously rated well qualified by the a.b.a. standing committee on the federal judiciary. he had over 20 years of experience in private practice. principally involving complex business litigation matters. he had more than five years of public service, having served as

general counsel at the office of management and budget and at the u.s. department of transportation. despite his qualifications, mr. rosen's nomination languished in committee for over six months he did not receive a hearing an obviously he didn't receive a committee vote. while i'm disappointed that mr. rosen was not given any consideration, i am pleased to support judge boasberg. he was nominated last june, had his hearing in september. he was reported out of committee last december during the lam lameduck session and the senate was unable to complete action on the nomination before our sine die adjournment. the committee moved quickly on his renomination this year reporting him out of committee last month. judge boasberg presently serves as an associate judge for the superior court of the d.c.

following the senate's unanimous confirmation, president george w. bush appointed him to this position in august of 2002. judge boasberg earned his b.a. magnum cum laude from yale college. his masters of study from oxford university and his jurist doctorate from yale law school. after completing law school, he clerked for the honorable dorothy w. nelson for the u.s. court of appeals for the ninth circuit. he then went into private practice working as a litigator on complex business and white kol orr -- collar defense matters. he also served in the district of calendar number. there he specialized in homicide cases. he has received a unanimously

well-qualified rating from the a.b.a. standing committee on the federal judiciary. i'm pleased his seat is being filled with concrete knowledge of what it takes to be a judge and i hope that judge boasberg continues to work hard to serve the american people. i congratulate the nominee and his family on this important lifetime appointment. i yield the floor and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. a senator: i ask that the calling of the quorum be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection.

mr. grassley: i would yield back the balance of time on our side. the presiding officer: the time is yielded back. mr. grassley: okay. i would ask that the calling of the -- i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators who have not voted, wishing to vote or who wish to change their vote? if not, the ayes are 96, there are no nays. the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, the motion to reconsider is considered made and laid on the table, the president shall immediately be notified of the senate's action, and the senate will resume legislative session. the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion. we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the motion to proceed to

calendar number 17, s. 493, a bill to authorize and improve the sbir and sttr programs and for other purposes. signed by 17 senatorsmen senato7 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is: is it the sense of senate that debate on the motion to proceed to s. 493, a bill to reauthorize and improve the sbir and sttr programs or for other purposes, shall be brought to a close? the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any members in the chamber wishing to change their vote or to vote? if not, on that vote, the yeas are 84, the nays are 12. three-fifths of the senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in the affirmative, the motion is agreed to. mr. reid: mr. president? mr. president? the presiding officer: mr. leader. lied lied ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed it a period of morning business. senators allowed to speak for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. the senator from missouri. ms. mccaskill: mr. president? mr. president, last week kansas city lost a treasure, a very,

very special person to the kansas city community passed away last week. this is a man, mike murphy, who was loved by just about everybody in the area. and while his family and friends are gathered now in kansas city for his memorial service, i'm sure there are hundreds that are there, i would like to place these words in the "congressional record" in his memory. and obviously my prayers go out to his family. mike murphy has been part of the fabric of kansas city for almost 50 years. over 40 years he was the most dominant local radio personality in all of the midwest. he was popular --. in fact, he became radio lower. at -- he became radio lore.

over his career, over 50% of the people listening to the radio in kansas city were listening to his program. he began his career in radio in 1968. he went on to rise to a class by himself, in local and regional radio and in fact was the winner of the more persist stey just marconi award in 1998. thousands of truckers and salesman throughout the midwest heard him on the mighty kcmo and became his fans and friends. his program was an essential part of their day. why? what was there about this guy? he really didn't have a political agenda. unlike today, he wasn't busy trying to get people all upset about the issues of the day. he didn't take sides on political issues. he rarely had big stars as guests. but from time to time they came

through, wanting to promote something because his show was such a dominant show in the area, they wanted to get on it. he was just a funny i are reverent guy -- irreverent guy who always made you feel like that you knew him when you listened to his program. he talked like a real person. he didn't try to show off his intellect. he was smart as a whip, but he never felt the need to impress anybody. i mean anybody. he just wanted to be your pal. he was fun and funny. he's famous, most famous in kansas city for starting the second-largest st. patrick's parade in the country. how did he start it? in 1973 he was having a drink at a bar that a buddy of his owned. he and a very prominent p.r. guy who worked in campaigns around kansas city, pat o'neill sr.,

and maybe one or two of their other friends called larry moore, a local news reporter, and said we're going to start a parade. and they went out of the bar and they marched a few blocks, and they got a little film on tv that night, and the kansas city st. patrick's parade was born. years later thousands and thousands of floats and hundreds of thousands of spectators, and every year the st. patrick's parade, where was mike murphy? on a garbage truck. he always rode on a garbage truck, his way of signaling to the people of kansas city, i'm no big deal. i don't need a fancy car. i'm happy up here on the garbage truck. he was getting upset about kansas city's heritage, so in 1996 he decided we need to have a cattle drive again through kansas day, hearkening back to the days of a frontier town. what did he do?

he started a cattle drive through downtown kansas city. he would get some cowboys, and then invite a lot of his pals, amateur cowboys to get on horses and take these cattle down the main street of kansas city. he loved characters. he thought being called a little goofy was the highest compliment you could pay him. he loved to talk about u.f.o.'s and aliens. his show was a vacation from serious. his humor was never at the expense of someone else. i was so fortunate to be one of the many that became part of his large group of regulars. it all began with a phone call to his show when i was driving back from jefferson city to kansas city as a young state legislator. this was over 20 years ago. he was saying stuff on the radio. of course i was listening to

mike murphy as i drove because everybody listened to mike murphy. he was saying something on the radio that wasn't correct. this was before cell phones. i pulled my car off the highway. i remember to this day exactly where it was. i got on a pay phone and i called his show because he was saying something that wasn't correct. i was scared to death. he took my call. i was scared. he was funny. and we became friends, like hundreds and hundreds other people just like me, we became friends. in fact, we became such close friends that he taunt immediate until i agreed to be -- taunted me until i agreed to be part of the cattle drive. so one year there i was on top of a horse riding through kansas city behind a bunch of cattle. i think that might have been the last year of the cattle drive because i think that is the year some of them escaped into a parking tkpwar rapblg and the can -- tkpwar rapblg and the kansas city police were called to see if we couldn't get them

off the top of a multistory garage in downtown kansas city. i was blessed to be in a bleacher seat to watch his heart at work. from his annual salvation army show to his small acts of kindness to mere acquaintances to his incredible loyalty to his friends, his heart was as enormous as his patience for b.s. was small. he also had no patience for pompous. some of his famous shows were shows where someone came on his show that was really would be considered a big deal. a star. and if that person began being arrogant on mike murphy's show, if that person started talking down to mike murphy's friends, his listeners, mike would let him know in no uncertain terms that the interview was over, that he was not interested in allowing anyone to talk down to his pals, his listening

audience. i will never ever forget the twinkle in mike murphy's eye, and it's important that he remain one of kansas city's brightest legends of all time. my hope for mike murphy's memory, i am not surprised that mike chose the first 17 days of may to meet his maker, because of the fun that he had around st. patrick's day. my hope is that every st. patrick's day in kansas city people will raise a glass to mike murphy. and when they do, that they tell a funny story. it would be great if that story would be about mike murphy. but the most important thing is that it's a funny story. and let me tell you, mike won't care if it's not even true.

so to mike murphy, the kind of man that walks as a giant among us and we don't even realize it until he's gone, a man who never lost sight that the little salesman out there driving in his car and the mother at home doing her family's laundry were the most important people on the earth. here's to you, mike. godspeed, my pal. and i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from colorado. mr. bennet: mr. president, i rise today to speak about the importance of a landmark piece of legislation, the clean air act. congress passed the clean air act over 40 years ago with broad bipartisan support from both chambers in congress, and president nixon wisely signed it into law. since then we've seen remarkable benefits to the health of our nation.

we've seen significant reductions in pollution from lead, mercury, sulfur dioxide and a host of other contaminants. america reduced pollution and made remarkable strides in improving public health even while our economy adjusted and thrived. in fact, the clean air act has a long and clear track record of promoting job creation and economic growth while reducing pollution. the economic benefits of the clean air act are significant. for every dollar spent on clean air act provisions, we get -- protections, we get $30 of public health benefits in return. in the year 2010 alone, the clean air act saved 160,000 lives and avoided millions of cases of pollution-related illness, including 1.7 million cases of asthma exacerbation, 130,000 heart attacks, 86,000 emergency room visits, 3.2 million lost school days and 13

million lost work days. mr. president, this is a profoundly important law. it protects every single american from the types of pollution that can cause asthma attacks, lost school days for young children, emergency room visits, heart attacks, strokes, and even premature deaths. the house of representatives recently passed a continuing resolution for the remainder of the fiscal year that would make truly draconian cuts to clean air act funding and authority. these policy riders do not belong in the seven-month budget, and i'm glad the senate recently voted that legislation down. upon passage of the house bill, the american lung association, which is the leading organization working to save american lives from the ravages of lung disease, said the house of representatives also adopted amendments that would block implementation of the clean air act and its lifesaving protections. these provisions and others adopted by the house would

result in millions of americans, including children, seniors, and people with chronic disease such as asthma, being forced to breathe air that is unhealthy. breathing air pollution cause asthma attacks, heart attacks, strokes, cancer and shortened lives. mr. president, that's coming from one of the most respected public health organizations in the world, telling us that this weakening of the clean air act would have dire public health consequences, that more americans will get sick from toxic pollution. we can be and we shall be flexible and listen to the industries affected by the law, but we can't undermine its purpose. legitimate concerns about regulation should be addressed so we can prosper and grow jobs here in the united states of america. it's important that the clean air act be enforced in a commonsense manner that is workable for american businesses, but we cannot abandon its core charges to

preserve public health and ensure the cleanliness of the air that we breathe. i know there's often attention -- a tension between the e.p.a., the regulated community and stakeholders seeking to navigate the clean air act, and there probably always will be. our economy functions best and in a way that's best for our citizens when we seek a robust clean air act and are responsive to the needs of our economy. an example of this working well is praise the administration received from the c.e.o. of a leading energy company who said -- quote -- "when i look at what e.p.a. has done so far, it's actually been pretty moderate." when the same c.e.o. was asked whether congress should delay the administration's work to protect public health for two years, he said -- quote -- "that's just two more years of uncertainty, where i think a lot of the investment will remain on the sideline in our industry instead of being invested in technology, we know how to build here in america. i don't support delay for those reasons."

mr. president, i support continued implementation of the clean air act and will oppose efforts to undermine this important law. for my part, the decision is very simple. we should let doctors and scientists dictate our public health policy instead of politicians. and i hope my friends on both sides of the aisle will come to this same conclusion as well and vote against efforts to weaken the clean air act. for more than 40 years we've seen that protecting the air we breathe does not have to come at a cost to the nation's economy. both can improve. both must improve hand in hand. to close, i'd just like to reiterate that the clean air act has been successful reducing levels of dozens of dangerous air pollutants and protecting the health of millions of americans, all while our economy grew. this is a landmark law that has had strong bipartisan support for decades. the senate shouldn't weaken it. mr. president, i yield the floor.

mr. president, i'd suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be

suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: i ask consent to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: the senate is in morning business. mr. durbin: mr. president, i have been around congress a few years, and when i served in the house of representatives 16 years ago, the republicans won control of congress for the first time in 40 years. they promised to change how business was done in washington and they elected newt gingrich of georgia as speaker of the house. on his first day on the job, speaker gingrich addressed a black tie dinner of happy supporters and took aim at an enemy that he said was undermining america's values. that enemy was big bird. newt gingrich denounceed public broadcasting as a sandbox for the rich, and he condemned it for -- quote -- "eating trears money." he went on to say, "they are simply enclaves of the left, using your money to propagandize your children against your values."

once the gingrich republican revolutionaries finished passing their so-called contract with america, gingrich vowed he would do everything in his power to do away with the corporation for public broadcasting, national public radio and public broadcasting stations. fortunately, in the republican and democratic parties, cooler heads prevailed. big bird was spared. well, to borrow a line from former president reagan, here we go again. when we should be talking about the serious budget deficit affecting america, the house republican budget spent too much time resurrecting the old bumper stickers of the past. they went to america's bumper sticker museum and said, well, let's see if there are some oldies but goodies here. and they loaded up the republican budget bill with a lot of old issues, and they went back and some of them fondly went back to the day when newt gingrich went after big bird. 16 years after newt gingrich,

this new band of republicans in the house are once again denouncing public broadcasting as a hotbed of subversive values, and they vowed to pull the plug. you may remember, mr. president, our friends across the aisle actually tried to end funding for the corporation for public broadcasting last november during the lame duck session. that time, the rallying cry was outraged over npr's firing of commentator juan williams. now there is a new defunding effort under way and a new source of outrage. james o'keefe, a right-wing activist with a video camera and a conservative agenda, released video last week which he claims proves that national public radio is a biased, liberal news organization that needs no federal funding. in the video, two allies of mr. o'keefe pretend to be members of a muslim education group who are considering making a large donation, they said, to npr. then they secretly reported their meeting with two npr

executives. now, if the name james o'keefe rings a bell with members of the united states senate, it should. remember some of the other things that he was caught doing? it was james o'keefe and his colleagues who posed as telephone repairmen and tried to lie their way into the office of our colleague, senator mary landrieu of louisiana. they were going to try to make one of their gotcha videos there, but they went too far. in fact, at the end of it, mr. o'keefe pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor of entering federal property under false pretenses. a federal judge sentenced mr. o'keefe to three years of probation, a fine of $1,500 and 100 hours of community service. this same mr. o'keefe in 2009 posed as -- with some of his friends as a pimp and prostitute to secretly film a discussion with staffers of the grassroots antipoverty of group acorn. their video of that meeting was so inflammatory that congress

vowed to eliminate all federal funding for that group. i cannot tell you, mr. president, how many amendments we had on the floor of the senate in the midst of all the problems we were facing in the country and around the world focused on acorn. three separate investigations, incidentally, later cleared acorn of any wrongdoing. a report by the congressional research service found that mr. o'keefe's undercover videotaping may have broken laws both in california and maryland. mr. o'keefe obviously is not too concerned about breaking the law if he thinks he is going to come up with a sensational video. he was convicted in louisiana, as i mentioned earlier. the "new york daily news," not exactly a liberal news organization, concluded -- quote -- when it came to the acorn incident, "they had edited the tape to meet their agenda." as california's then-attorney general jerry brown said after they investigated the acorn video, "things are not always as partisan zealots portray them through highly selective editing

of reality. sometimes a fuller truth is found on the cutting room floor." mr. o'keefe appears to be engaged in creative editing again, and this time his target is national public radio. that's not just my opinion. the website of none other than fox news' own glenn beck -- that's right, glenn beck -- compares the edited and unedited versions of mr. o'keefe's latest video and concludes that the edited version appears to be deceptively edited in order to portray statements by one of the secretly recorded npr execs out of context. for example, on the video, ron schiller, who was then in charge of fundraising for npr and has since been terminated, is heard to say, and i quote -- "it's very clear we would be better off in the long run without federal funding." end of quote. i have heard that repeated over and over again, that this npr fundraising executive said we would be better off if we didn't

have federal funding. the far right has seized on this statement as proof that npr doesn't need it and shouldn't get it. here's the part that ended up on the cutting room floor. schiller explained when they look at the full transcript that -- quote -- most philanthropists think npr is fully funded by the federal government which keeps them from donating. he says if the funding stopped now, we would have a lot of public stations go dark. they support local tv stations all across america, in illinois and i'll bet virginia. direct support for those stations makes up 75 cents out of every dollar they spend. i know, because you turn it on, you listen for the news and they are begging for money. you send them a check and think i hope they will leave us alone for a little while now. 170 million americans using public broadcasting services every month. that's more than half the population of america. in my state of illinois, one

million people listened to our 14 million public radio stations and three million people rely on our eight public television stations. all told, funding for public broadcasting works out to about about $1.35 per american per year. 11 cents a month? i'd say that's a bargain. it's a fraction of what people would pay to get good information. eliminating federal funding for the corporation for public broadcast something going to force many smaller stations to close if the house republicans have their way. the first ones hit, west virginia, rural areas of illinois, small town america. they will be the ones to lose the service first. rural communities will be really hard hit as they rely more than big stations and big cities on federal funding. cutting all funding for public broadcasting, does anybody seriously believe that's going to affect the deficit? but it would be a great loss to tens of millions of americans who rely on public broadcasting for quality entertainment and

honest, in-depth news coverage. with the momentous change occurring in the world and the major challenges facing our nation, it's essential that we maintain the integrity and viability of public broadcasting. there is nothing in commercial broadcasting that can replace it. now, some of our conservative friends -- and one of them came up to me on a plane when i was heading home to chicago this last weekend -- said they don't object so much to the content of public broadcasting, they just object philosophically to the whole idea of taxpayers' money being spent to subsidize radio and tv. they said let them go to the free market. if they can survive, fine. if they can't, so be it. here's what they ignore. fox, nbc, abc, cbs, cnn, virtually all of the major network stations and other commercial broadcasters receive billions of dollars each year in public subsidies. how? in the form of free use of the public tv spectrum.

mr. president, these stations don't own the airwaves. the american people own the airwaves, and we give them licenses to use our airwaves, america's airwaves to make their profits. the new america foundation estimated the total value of the tv spectrum used by commercial tv stations at nearly nearly $5.5 billion a year. that doesn't count the additional tens of millions of dollars that commercial tv stations make selling political ads every campaign season. sound familiar? we've all been there. writing checks to these commercial tv stations to put on our ads so we can run for office and preserve the right of that tv station to use the public airwaves free. the public subsidies to commercial stations dwarf what we spend on public broadcasting. now, i admire the reporting on npr but i'm a progressive democrat. many conservatives admire that reporting. david brooks is a conservative i really respect. he writes for "the new york times" and i look forward to his

column, even when i disagree with it. i know it's a thoughtful analysis of the challenges we face. listen to what he said. he said, "i think npr has done a good job over the last ten years of reducing bies. i think it was biased ten years ago but now i think it's pretty straight and the federal money for npr doesn't go for the big stations, it goes out to the rural stations of america." david brooks, you're right. if the republicans have their way in the house. the losers are going to be a lot of the red states and blue states in america who to want ee of the story. tony blankly used to be an aide for then-speaker gingrich. he works for fox news and npr. he said, "i've bone been on npra long time. from a personal pe perspective,

they've given me all the time i need. " he added, "no editor or host has ever suggested, can could you not be so conservative on npr. i have been open and free so express my opinion." the list goes o. i won't read all of them. i'll put them in the record. but the point i want to make is this, mr. president. at a time in america when we value our government, when we applaud freedom, when we preach it to the world, when with you beg > author aauthoritarian rega chance to hear all sides of the story, when it comes to free speech and free press should be a guidepost for the world, can we really be in the business of shutting down this -- this opportunity for americans every single day to hear both sides of the story when it comes to the big issues? i don't think that what was done in the house is about money. i think it's about a political philosophy. many of them think they just

want to shut down npr because they're offended by some things that are said. well, let me say from my side of the spectrum, i've been offended the other way. i thought they want too far the other way. but isn't that what it's all about? they give you both sides. make up your own mind and that's the way it should be. we've seen what can happen when people rush to scrment -- judgment after seeing selectively edited and sometimes deceptively h edited videos. shirley sherod was frierd her job at the ag department and painted unfairlied as ing about on the when she was in fact making a racial flee for tolerance. her comments were knowingly distorted in a video produced by a man who has in the past supported mr. ow o'keefe. later investigation showed there was no criminal wrongdoing. let's not make the same mistake again. let's not be duped by deceptively edited videos at a

time when america needs objective reporting, informative programming that public radio and public television provide. mr. president, i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: thank you, mr. president. i ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business for ten minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: thank you, mr. president. earlier today in columbus, ohio, state capital of my great state, i was at the ohio state university's fisher college of business. we talked by phone with under secretary francisco sanchez, who is one of the leaders to cover commerce on how to grow exports in this country. the president is charged the congress, our businesses encouraged all of us to find ways to double exports as a major path to chick growth, especially to grow manufacturing in our country. we know that for the last several months, we see

manufacturing growth, albeit too small, but manufacturing growth in this country. that's especially important in ohio. my state is the third leading performing state in the country behind only california and texas, states which are two and three times -- three and two times our size in population. yet ohio is -- has kept pace with doing relatively well manufacturing but we know what's happened to manufacturing in our country in the last 30 years. only 30 years manufacturing wasa quarter of you are a g.d.p. financial services was about 10% or 11% of g.d.p. in these 30 years that position has almost flipped, that financial services is over a quarter of our g.d.p., manufacturing is only 10% or 11% or 12%. that's why the president, with his push on exporting, is so important. not that we export manufacturing goods. of course we export services, as we should. but clearly manufacturing is a majors component of that.

i sit on the president's advisory council on export -- export advisory council with leaders in the administration and some of america's koas of some of america's largest companies and many successful midsize and small companies. we had a meeting last friday with secretary locke, under secretary sanchez, secretary clinton, jim mcnierny of l. of - mcnierny of boeing. in ohio, i have put together an export advisory council. we let in columbus today. that was what our meeting was about to talk about ideas. we heard from albert green of kent displace, william dawson, phillip irwin, randall which williamson of command alcon

inc., linda vaughan, and ken hagan from fosfel, all of them raised concerns directly to the undersecretary of commerce and directly to me, concerns about corruption in russia, concerns about tariffs in brazil, concerns that we all face in all of our -- and all of our companies face in breaking into the chinese market and many other concerns about everything from medical devices to export of services and all of that. so the meeting was important as it will in fact -- and i mentioned one another -- susan helper, from case western, had particularly good thoughts about how we grow manufacturing in this country. we know that most jobs are created by medium and small businesses. we know that fewer than 1% of american companies actually export. even as close to canada or to

mexico, only 1% of our businesses export. so we know we have to do much more. in germany, for instance, 20% of their g.d.p. -- 20% of their work nrs is manufacturing. they have a trade surplus in manufacturing -- they have a trade surplus with the rest of the world, while we've a huge, almost insidious trade deficit, and germany has done some pretty interesting things in encouraging manufacturing. we have, as many people point out -- we have not really had in our country a manufacturing policy. i spoke with pat russo tonight who is the former coe of lou lut technologies, he sits on the g.m. board. they talk about the fact that we don't have a manufacturing policy in this country. that's why we're seeing other countries begin to do much better in manufacturing while we have by and large drifted in our policies in our strategies on manufacturing.

there are several things that came out of this meeting that we need to do. we need to pay particular attention on the economic development assistance and creating economic development partnerships and business incubators. we need to pay special attention to help companies get access to capital. it's been a vital roadblock as the providing officer from oregon has been involved. roadblock to our full economic recovery. we need to look at r&d tax credits. part of a policy should be increases in r&d tax credits including making 40-c part of the code that encourages conservation, encourages more efficiencies in energy production and in energy use, making 48-c permanent. it means workforce training. our sectors act, which matches up what local businesses and labor unions and community colleges and workforce investment boards do to retrain workers so they find jobs after

that training. that's why we're doing at the end of the month our fourth annual ohio college president's conference where i invite in some 5-60 college presidents. we've done it for the last three years to talk about these issues. how do we encourage people to become engineers? how do we help with access to college, particularly in light of the fact that the republicans are trying to cut pell grants several hundred dollars per student, sometimes a couple thousand, $3,000 a family, whatever. how do we fight back and make sure that students have access to education and to our higher education system, those that choose to go to college? we have a lot of work to do. all of this clurks as i sat at the white house the area day with the president's export council that while we work on exports, we need to fix our trade agreements. we need to fix our tax policy. we need to make sure those workers who lose their jobs because of trade -- and this is so often forgot about by my

republican colleagues -- workers who lose their jobs because of trade have to be compensated. they need to be retrained, they need to keep their health care. that's why the presiding officer and i, many others, have fought for the extension -- senator casey especially from pennsylvania -- have fought for the extension of trade adjustment assistance and the health coverage tax credit, two longtime federal programs, the t.a.a., trade adjustment assistance, was started bipartisanly under president kennedy in 1962 -- why knows are so important for workers who have lost their jobs through no doing of their own but because of trade agreements passed, i think wrong headedly in this body and in the house of representatives down the hall, because of grade agreements they've -- because of trade agreements they've lost their jobs. wthey need the opportunity to be retrained and to keep their health insurance after being laid off. our efforts to double export exs extraordinarily important tower our economic growth.

it is important that we're sensitive to workers who have lost their jobs because of trade policy. we can do this right. we cannen force our trade laws more agresssive. president obama has begun to do this. we can work on trade agreements. we can fix our trade policy so it actually helps american workers and american consumers instead of practicing trade policy, adopted out of a textbook -- an economics textbook that's 20 years off utah prints. we ought to be adopt ago trade policy that's in our nation's national interest. it is not what we've done in the past. as we move with president obama in -- and this congress towards a manufacturing strategy, and even better than that, a manufacturing policy like most of the rest of the industrial world has, i think we'll all be in a better position to build a middle class in oregon and ohio and across the country. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call: the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the quorum call. the presiding officer: without

objection. pwhr-pb pwr-pb i ask unanimous consent the judiciary committee be tk-rbd from -- mr. brown: -- i ask unanimous consent that the judiciary committee be discharged for further consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 100 designating march 11, it 2011 as world phrupblg day. the presiding officer: -- world plumbing day. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? mr. brown: i further ask the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table with no intervening action or debate, any statements be printed in the record at the appropriate place. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of s. res. 101 introduced earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 101 expressing the sense of the senate relating to the march 11, 2011 earthquake and tsunami in japan. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to

the measure? without objection, the senate will proceed. mr. brown: mr. president, i further ask the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table with no intervening action or debate and any statements relating to the resolution be printed in the record at the appropriate place. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the following senators be recognized for the times listed below in morning business for the purpose of giving their maiden speech to the senate: senator portman from my state following the maiden speech of senator coats on tuesday, march 15 for up to 15 minutes and senator blumenthal of connecticut at 12:00 noon, wednesday, march 16, for up to 20 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today it adjourn until 10:00 a.m. on tuesday, march 15, following the prayer and pledge, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day and following leader remarks there be a period of morning business until 11:00 a.m. with

senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees with the majority controlling the first half and the republican leader controlling the second half. further at 11:00 a.m. the senate proceed to the consideration of s. 493, the small business reauthorization bill. finally, mr. president, i ask the senate recess from 12:30 until 2:15 to allow for the weekly caucus meetings. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: tomorrow at 2:15 senator coats will be recognized to speak for up to 30 minutes to deliver his maiden speech to the senate. following his statement senator portman will be recognized to speak for up to 15 minutes to deliver his maiden speech. roll call votes in relation to amendments to the small business jobs bill are possible throughout the day tomorrow. mr. president, if there is no further business to come before the senate i ask it adjourn under the previous order. the presiding officer: the the presiding officer: the

test

the united nations estimates that since the start of the conflict in libya, 200,000 people fled the neighboring egypt and tunisia. officials from the state park

and usaid said just a trip to the region to discuss humanitarian efforts. more now from this 30 minute briefing. >> good afternoon everyone. welcome to the state department. it's our good fortune today to have with us assistant secretary for population refugees and migration eric schwartz and the u.s. agency for international development assistant administrator for democracy, conflict and humanitarian assistance nancy. the just returned from a week-long trip to tunisia and egypt and are here to brief you on the efforts to address the humanitarian situation resulting from the crisis in libya. but before handing them the podium, i just want to respond briefly to a number of inquiries we've gotten regarding the possible return of the former president aristide to haiti, the head of the second round of elections on march 20. the decision to allow

mr. aristide to return is up to the government of haiti. under the haitian constitution he has the right to return to its country. however, former president aristide has chosen to remain outside the tv for seven years to return this week could only be seen as a conscious choice to impact the elections. we would urge former president st to delay his return until after the electoral process has concluded to permit the haitian people to cast their ballots in a peaceful atmosphere. return to the election could potentially destabilizing for the political process. the government of south africa has generously hosted former president aristide and his family to do voluntarily depart haiti in 2004. we encourage the south african government as a committed partner to the ability to urge former president aristide to delay his return until after the election. with that i will hand it over to

eric. >> thank you very much. good afternoon. nancy, the usaid's assistant administrator for democracy conflict and humanitarian assistance and i traveled to tunisia and egypt between march 8 and march 12th. i think in this business we know that the most significant humanitarian crisis don't get ultimately humanitarian solutions. they have political solutions but nonetheless, there is an enormous humanitarian challenge in the region. some 140,000 or more migrants and refugees have fled mostly foreign workers, libya into tunisia and the member from the

egyptian side of the borders over 110,000. as president obama and secretaries did clinton has indicated, we strongly support the efforts of the international community and the governments of to tunisia and egypt to this humanitarian challenge which in the first instance is a challenge of getting people in most cases to their homes. we visited the tunisian plebeian border, the border town rasjer and people in a traffic can that

the border. but as difficult the challenge is that they face we also witnessed excellent cooperation between the people and the government of tunisia and the international organizations of the high commission of refugees and the international organization for migration, the world food program and many others. excellent cooperation between the government and the people of tunisia and those organizations that are operating on the ground. we also traveled to cairo, and in egypt we met with a range of active international organizations and others and the situation in egypt there are about -- let me just go back to tunisia for the second and say that on the tunisian libyan border there are now probably about 72,000 foreign workers. about 17,000 more less. and on that side of the border

there's 20,000 they're looking to build additional capacity as well. on the e egyptian side, there's probably about 5,000 or so. again, the vast majority of these people are foreign workers who are looking and waiting on the transport home. the government of egypt is working with international organizations on the border. we are encouraging the government of egypt to their significant challenges in terms of enhancing shelter in the border area as well as providing the needs of those who've come across who may not be able to go back to their countries of origin. of course the refugees and in light of those challenges and also future challenges which we may come a week and the dialogue and cooperation with the

international organizations are absolutely critical. the united states has been in the lead internationally in the effort to support the populations. we've provided today about $47 million in assistance to international and non-governmental organizations to provide food, shelter, medical supplies, both in egypt and tunisia at the borders but also inside of libya. we also transported the egyptians, u.s. military aircraft has transported the egyptians from tunisia to egypt to their homes. we have assessment teams in the region, and i can see that from the personal accounts that nancy and i both received from the migrants in the camp in tunisia, the expressions of appreciation and gratitude for the efforts of the international community in general, the government of tunisia come in particular, the efforts of the government of the

united states, i think, were very significant. people were very grateful for what it is we are trying to do. finally, i will say that other donors that are concerned about the situation on the ground, we are encouraging them to more. others do need to do more. the challenges are still significant and substantial, and they will continue in the days, weeks -- days and weeks ahead. with that, i'd like to turn the microphone over to my colleague, nancy, who will talk a little bit more and then we'll be very happy to take your questions. >> hi, thanks eric. hello, everybody. as eric said, we were able to take this trip to better understand the humanitarian needs and the quality of the response to date. and while there, we were able to announce some of the additional

funding that is now part of the $47 million that the u.s. has committed. i want to say a little bit about the part of that commitment. the $10 million that we've given to the world food program is not only for assistance to those who are affected inside libya -- and ogle come back to that in a moment -- but for some portion of that for those most economically affected in tunisia and egypt. in tunisia in particular, given such integrated economy there, feeling the triple by any of the loss of tourism, loss of trade with libya, and the loss of remittances and the workers who worked there. and yet, despite that, there is a tremendous outpouring of support by the tunisian people themselves as well as the government to support those coming across the border. we had mobilized as eric said to provide assistance both to those

who are coming across the borders and to pre-position and provide assistance inside of libya. we have worked with the international ngo partners and parts of the human family to provide urgently needed medical supplies inside of libya. we have given to the who is emergency health kits come in each of which provides primary health care needs for a population of 10,000 for three months. one of the greatest concerns inside libya is first of all health needs both urgent and regular primary and ongoing food security challenges which is why the emphasis for work inside libya is on the health and food security. we have deployed a 15 member disaster assistance response to

the region. these are people who are civilian, humanitarian experts, and they are working to ensure that we are coordinated and able to coordinate with the international humanitarian assistance effort and track needs as the fall. we remain committed to working with all members of the international community and as eric said, as this is a very fluid situation and needs to continue the fault. it's important that we all work together for challenges in this region. thank you. we will take questions. >> on the 15 member disaster assistance team use it in the region, can you tell us where they are? and mr. donilon said last week that the u.s. disaster relief teams were going to be going into libya. is there -- are there u.s. personnel on their way to libya,

benghazi or anywhere else? how many, when coming and what sort of security might they have if they go? >> it's a regional team of 15 people coming and as mr. donilon said, we are fully prepared and will go in as soon as the security situation permits us to do so. as you know, it's very fluid and rapidly evolving to the estimate are they holding them somewhere like malta or something? >> i can't go into those details. >> okay. >> sorry, kirit, did you have a question or -- >> owls my question. >> great, go ahead. >> in your op-ed before you left on your trip, you were very clear in pointing out that the budget cuts for the international affairs budget could directly impact the work we are doing in tunisia and each of and that you were set to explode. can you talk more about that? when you got there, what do you

anticipate generally as the needs? how do you plan to go about getting those found scraps into budgets in the current form as we see them on the hill impair our ability to do the important work? >> let me answer. i mean, in an urgent crisis like this, we will do everything possible to insure we have what we need to respond. and that means in addition to the resources that we have in our accounts and the support of -- other parts of the government were necessary. it means also working very hard to secure contributions from other donors. i think the best way i can answer your question is kind of a step back more generally, because i think we are committed to responding to this particular situation with whatever is required. but we have, about the world, ongoing humanitarian responses to protracted situations,

situations that are not emergency but are protected and require our engagement, and we have emergency situations, and we have accounts for both. and it is the future funding of both of these accounts so that they are seriously imperiled by some of these proposals. >> so do you have enough money in those accounts to deal with these crises or do you anticipate needing more money for the emergencies that you're dealing with? and where are we going to get that money? >> i think in the immediate term, in the short term with a specific response, we will do what is necessary. but the concerns that we described in the place to which you prefer to have to do with what -- in the grand scheme of things, what comes next. but the cuts to which we referred are dramatic and what impact both these emergency accounts and which have been put to use in the sick to be cut this crisis as well as our

regular accounts which also have been put to use in this crisis. >> do you support kerry's idea for the enterprise fund? >> i did your pardon? >> senator kerry proposed an enterprise fund to speed assistance into these two countries. are you familiar with that? is that something you support? >> i can't -- >> i think that's separate from the humanitarian situation. and i would just add one of the key points of the op-ed that we did together while we were there was to point out the important nexus of our values and our national security interests in that it's when these crisis hit that we are able to provide the kind of humanitarian assistance that is so fundamentally part of we are as americans coupled with why it's important to not let those needs go on met in the region that's undergoing the

historic transformation. >> you talked a moment ago about the trial and to insert members of this region team and the security situation allows it. is there any larger concern than, depending on the course of events that help from the u.s. may not come as quickly as you'd like? is it too much to assume that those ngos already in the country are going to be about to pick up the slack as it were? >> i want to underscore we are already in have been for some time now providing assistance directly inside of libya through our ngo and other partners and we are able to continue that assistance. so especially looking at immediate health needs -- >> would you able to expand those operations as the situation seemingly continues to deteriorate or is there a whole

pattern on what you can do? >> it is a very rapidly evolving situation both in terms of the level and the kind of medium security environment. so the imperative right now is to be ready to move in a variety of directions and respond to this situation permits. >> i just want to follow up looking for the transcript i don't see anything last week about the security situation being a contingency for these teams into libya so i'm wondering when that came up with the situation. mr. donilon said very clearly in sight of libya. >> i will repeat what i said. we always need to be concerned about the security situation of our civilian teams and it's a wreck the evolving situation.

>> so is there a decision made to not go into it quickly? >> we are watching this very closely. we have teams prepared and the social security situation permits we will go in. >> security is always an issue and concern as a paramount concern -- >> it's just that last week its soon sending teams and now it's a time frame at all. islamic if i can follow-up is there a time frame at this point? do you have a period during which if you don't get them, this doesn't become feasible? >> i would just echoed that security is paramount as an issue and we are continuing to provide humanitarian assistance. it's not that that's stopping. >> okay. >> we are looking to do that as

soon as possible. >> okay. the question i was going to ask was whether you can expand on that aid that you are providing inside of libya's -- how that's happening, what you are able to actually get in the country through your n'digo partners if you had a dollar figure if you have a sense of what type of aid is going on. >> so, the u.s. government has provided a total of $7 million to the ir -- the international community for red cross, and about $4 million to various ngo partners, international ngo partners. part of the $10 million to the world food program is for food security. and the focus, as i mentioned earlier, has been particularly looking at the health needs. there's been assistance to the world health organization. on a detailed earlier the emergency health kits that provide primary health care needs. so it's been primarily health care, it's been assistance for more trauma related health and medical assistance, it's been a central blankets, hygiene kits,

water containers and high energy biscuits. so food, health, basic humanitarian needs. >> and so that's a total of $21 million. is that all -- all that 20 million has gone inside the country? i just want to -- i don't know if you have the breakdown of how much has actually gone in or not. >> the 10 million for the wfp is still -- some of that is still available to use force of the communities that are hardest hit on the borders. >> we can try to provide you with more precise information, but it's really difficult to -- i mean, it's safe to say that millions of dollars of u.s. support has gone into libya to provide food, shelter, medical supplies, and other essentials items. because the non-governmental and international organization to which we provide the assistance operate both in the border area in egypt and tunisia as well as

inside libya, it's going to be very difficult to break that down. but we can try to get you a little bit more precise figures, but i think it's safe to say that millions of dollars of assistance are going in. >> okay. >> and i would just add that in these situations you want to always have flexibility so that you can scale up as the needs continue redefault. i would just underscore once again that this is a rapidly evolving situation. humanitarian needs continue to change. and you always in these situations need to have the flexibility to meet those needs as the emerging as they are identified. >> okay. my only little fallout would be can you tell us where that aid is going inside the country? imagine a lot of -- use it on the border regions. how far towards the center of the country has that got him? and then you said that it's

changing. can you give a sense of the trend line -- are you seeing an increased need now with the government offensive? >> we had -- its primarily in the east. we remain concerned about having better access in the western part of the country. and the -- i think fortunately because of the rapid mobilization of assistance, that some of the most immediate health and food needs were met. and we are continuing to provide and watch as the needs evil and change. >> and what about the trend line? is it getting worse? >> it's -- the health and the food needs i think are staying relatively -- we are not seeing

rapid increases of food and security at this point. >> we are concerned however -- nancy is referring to the situation in -- >> in the east. some of the east, yes. >> we are concerned about the situation in the west. obviously, we don't have a lot of information about what's happening in the west, but we have some. we get it from people who have come out and can talk about it. we get it from some organizations that have spoken to people who have involvement inside the country and the information we have there is there are serious humanitarian issues in the west relating to medical supplies, relating to food security issues and those concerns appear to be serious and substantial. in addition, you all have seen the reporting of the basic human rights and humanitarian issues in the west and all indications so those are extremely serious as well.

>> i'm a little hazy about the aid inside libya. does that include the emergency health kits provided by the united states? are those provided inside libya? and in addition to the humanitarian supplies directly provided by the united states, a high-protein biscuits, the blankets, the shelter -- that u.s. material has gone into libya? >> much of it has, but not all of it has gone in yet. part of what any kind of response of this nature is that you bring it in as the needs are identified. and we've got -- in cooperation with the international humanitarian community, there are supplies that are staged and positioned along with orders. >> and your little confidence is high that it is being properly distributed to the people who need it and not being to live tv could afford to buy -- >> our confidence is high, as eric said, in the east. >> you have to appreciate that

the international and the non-governmental organizations which work with -- we have worked with for many, many years, that they had established a very careful protocols for the distribution of assistance, even in the highly uncertain and fragile environments. so i think we can say with a high degree of confidence that the assistance that has gone in is going to good use. >> on the question of who you're talking to on the borders first there were some suggestions last week that there were concerns deal were not being allowed to leave libya. i'm wondering if you have any information to back that up on why and the second question is are we seeing any change in the makeup of the people who are coming across the third country nationals to begin with and now we see the more libyans to expect the giving up for the possibility of the libyans and the civil war continues and pushout for sort of political

reasons. >> you asked two questions, let me answer the first one first. there has been considerable concern from reporting and basically from the first hand accounts which nancy and i got in the border area that people have had difficulties in getting out of libya. there are a variety of reports that we've heard and stories. first call, people seem to be, you know, subject to confiscation of parts of their cell phones where they can have pictures and chips in their cell phones i guess, i don't know exactly what the technology is. people have been robbed. just generally have a hell of a hard time getting out. but in addition, we have heard reports of the kinds of

restrictions such as the checkpoints come and very concerned that people have faced considerable obstacles and restrictions in getting out. so that is the source of the very serious concern. in addition, we have also seen reporting of the grave and serious abuses of human rights and humanitarian principles in libya and that also is a source of enormous concern. >> last question. >> had the ngos wanted to run into any problems from the libyan government in trying to carry out their work throughout the past several weeks? >> there -- the international

ngos are operating primarily in the east. >> okay. >> and that's all rubble held -- >> even the red crescent society? >> i think they are mainly in the east. >> i think the international ngos are operating in the east. i just -- i don't know the extent to which there may be local, if any, local organizations in the west. we do know that they have very serious concerns about the humanitarian situation in the west. >> on japan if you can give us an update on with the u.s. aid teams have done going into the -- able to find on the first day. >> another would be more faeroe briefings on this. i would just sit frequently that within an hour of the earthquake we had a response management team that the the cassette up to coordinate and interagency government response that has been working 24/7 ever since

then with 147 people on a disaster assistance response team deployed in cite -- in japan. there are urban search and rescue teams with search dogs as well. and i know there will be a lot more specific detail on that leaders will leave you with that. thank you. >> so is there an internist as that? could you say if there is an internal assessment as of the 24 hours that they've been here? >> we will get more to you. i don't think they are prepared to give you the readout now. we will get back to you. [inaudible conversations]

earlier today louisiana senator mary landrieu came to the senate floor to call on president obama to request additional funds for disaster relief. she claims there's not enough money set aside for the u.s. to handle an emergency on the scale that japan is facing. here's a look at her comments.ed >> what i really would like to talk about briefly and i knowati senator durbin is coming to the floor is just to give myo heartfelt condolences to the j people of japan. prach mr. president, we have watched d family and i watching the scene unfolded with the terrible catastrophe that struck japan on friday afternoon following the earthquake 9.0 now on the by richter scale followed by theer

triple tsunami in some casesight 30 feet high that devastated ths coastal. some of the pictures are reminiscent of what happened inl the gulf coast about five and a half years ago with a 30-foot wave coming onshore in a deluxe the mississippi and then the catastrophe of the manmade oportions, proportions i in our case from l federal system broke and 18 injured people are lost their a lives. but the situation in japan as wr now know from watching the worsi crisis according to the trimester since the second world war it's going to take all of orr best efforts, governments w around the world come individuals, corporations and businesses to be generous i knoo louisiana and our cities ande we communities will be generous because the form generosity of the people of japan and many

volunteers that came from all w. over the country in the world. i hope that as this week of just search and rescue comes to a me for close that there will be timebug gr cleanup and rebuilding and mental health counseling and all of the things that have to go into helping and area of the country survive and go back. and pi know the people of japay were as prepared as any countryi could be for a situation like this, but the events of that dad at even overwhelmed one of the best and most organized an governments in the world, and i just am heartbroken to your buffaloes of people that are yeo unaccounted for and our hearts go out to them. nat generous in this time will onlya from just the charitable and tht moral standpoint, but, mr. president, japan is one of the strongest economies in theot world from the state isiana, we

represent, louisiana, t we are e second-largest trading partner e in the state so for the people of louisiana all of the states g have resisted interest in japan getting back on its feet, str building betteron and stronger. we are still in the process of rebuilding the lower ninth wards hat other neighborhoods t were hardit hit along the gulf a coast. they are still struggling to come back.an an important economic center foc our country but most certainly the cultural community aret important not just to japan butd h the world, so i hope with this 9.0 earthquake that hit i a hope people know that this is a thousand times worse than an eight-point on the richter scale. it's a it's not slightly worse, its 1,000 times worse. it's a huge earthquake and shift in and the earth place and then

so on behalf of the people of a louisiana, we want to say special condolences and best a wishes for the people of japan as they recovered and buried the dead those that have lost and t heal the injured and begin to rebuild the cities andger than communities even stronger than they were before and i hope we s will all be as generous as wemr. can. is a and one final point, to mr. president, this is a wake-up chairmanla of the homeland security committee i would like to liget this on the record this week. this is a wake-up call because we have not funded adequately our disaster response fund.r.f. we are actually about $1.6 billion below where we should be. this is not a wise policy givene

what happened over the weekend.m it could strike without warningf s any time.y that' if we leave just the amount of money something like katrina or, this event would have been that money would be used up in threea days and we haven't replenisheda that fund. s . call on the president to sendl a supplemental emergency bill. we can't pay for the current disasters out of future preparedness money and that'sin what the continuing resolutionay in the house basically does. i strongly object to taking money we have to set aside in the event a catastrophes happened to pay pay for the pasi disasters. that's another reason that i voted against the housend concurrent resolution and now with the additional of this horrific tragedy unfolding in japan with the tsunami, the o destruction of the cities, the

nuclearnt power plants that havd extraordinary pressure.ta it does us no good to take money out of paying for currente past disasters, paying for the past a damage.r to th so, i sent a letter to the president asking him to send out an emergency bill.ay would be wise for us to pay forf the past emergency's off budgetu and then to use our homeland security bill to budget asas effectively and appropriately as we can for the disasters that may occur. st i'm proud to say the democraticn leadership has doubled theetti amount of mongney we are settini aside just in case these things happen. it used to be on the $800 mi are budgeting close to 1.8 or 1.9 thinking in that even something happens we want to someg hap make sure -- this is in 48tate reates disasters have been bee a declared the last two years note just along the gulf coast. had g we've had flooding in thertheasf

northeast, flooding inlo the poy midwest.e we could potentially have -- wed had flooding this weekend.preadt i'm not sure how widespread it j was put in new jersey there wert scenes like throughout the weekend about refers overflowing as the spurring approaches. so, mr. president, let us, as we went to japan and otherrisis, ls solidarity with this crisis,r let's use this as a reminder to get our business street, to get our budget street and not mess r around with our disaster relief fund. we let's pay for the past disasters we owe the community and let pledge to help them rebuild andp set aside the appropriate moneyp in the regularri budget to takek care of thiengs that might happn this year as we advance. mr. president, on the yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.